With the new 5.2.1 Release DLG 5.20 was included. I just ran into a problem with this regarding Black Terabyte drives where it gives an false error. The error is "Error 0229: Missing Test Tracks". Replacing the drive gives the same error. There is a forum on WDC saying that the older versions don't have this problem. I've tried 5.19 and it passes on both drives.

I've edited my 5.2.1 to include both 5.19 and 5.20 versions, there doesn't seem to be an update at WDC's end. Perhaps including or downgrading would be a good idea?

About DLG v5.20, it should be noted that there is no official announcements or recognized known problems (yet?). Using DLG for DOS v5.19, or the Windows version, may or may not be a solution. At this time, the fact that other versions might not report errors doesn't mean the HDD is OK. I hope WDC comes up with an official answer and releases updated tool(s).

The reason I comment this here is because the issue is not related to UBCD, and questions / reports to problems with DLG v5.20 should be directed to WDC (through its forum, for example).

***

Some program updates (for whenever the next UBCD version gets out):

_ ASTRA 6.03

_ HDCLONE 4.2.4 fe.en (for inclusion in UBCD, beware to download the Free English version, not the German one);

__ memtest86 4.2.0 (

http://www.memtest86.com/support/ver_history.htm

)It includes kernel versions 4.2.0, 4.1.0 and 4.0b, but the previous version 3.5b is not included (which is the one with most important differences).I would suggest maybe replacing version 4.1.0 of the binary kernel with latest 4.2.0 (same file name, "memtest"), and leaving the older versions ("memtest.p", "memtest.pp") still included in UBCD (instead of replacing them with the new kernels).

_ datalife.img.gz -> xxx.img. Why this strange name? Is there any conflict with some other name?

_ Intel Processor Identification Utility V4.60 (P4 and above) If this is the only change (or similar ones) in FDUBCD, please consider using version "1.48.1" or similar (or even no version change), instead of "1.49".

About DLG v5.20, it should be noted that there is no official announcements or recognized known problems (yet?). Using DLG for DOS v5.19, or the Windows version, may or may not be a solution. At this time, the fact that other versions might not report errors doesn't mean the HDD is OK. I hope WDC comes up with an official answer and releases updated tool(s).

From the official reply:

Quote:

We have passed this information to the development team in charge of your product. Please disregard the error message that you got since this was caused by the software and not an error from the hard drive itself.

Seems like this is a transient error that can be ignored for the time being?

We have passed this information to the development team in charge of your product. Please disregard the error message that you got since this was caused by the software and not an error from the hard drive itself.

Seems like this is a transient error that can be ignored for the time being?

The text you quoted is from a user that posted what seems to be a generic response he received (not even a direct quote from WDC). For that specific user in particular, WDC seems to claim that the specific HDD is OK (after RMA), but there is no confirmation whether other versions of DLG would correctly and fully evaluate newish HDD models, or whether the strange result from DLG v5.20 is related to a particular HDD model or to a particular HDD controller (or whatever else).

In short, there is no official answer (except for a user quoting a generic email), which means:

_ "test with other DLG versions" may or may not be an adequate alternative - who knows!;

_ the issue is NOT related to UBCD, thus, users should (shall) report the problem to WDC, so it can be fixed. There is no workaround.

Victor Chew wrote:

Quote:

_ datalife.img.gz -> xxx.img. Why this strange name? Is there any conflict with some other name?

Don't quite understand this. Could you please elaborate?

ubcd521.iso -> ubcd/images/datalife.img.gz -> xxx.img (instead of datalife.img, as it would be expected). I am asking about the reason to use a different file name. Is there any conflict with any other file or program?

ubcd521.iso -> ubcd/images/datalife.img.gz -> xxx.img (instead of datalife.img, as it would be expected). I am asking about the reason to use a different file name. Is there any conflict with any other file or program?

I just checked the V5.2.1 ISO image and didn't find /ubcd/images/xxx.img.gz, only /ubcd/images/datalife.img.gz. Am I missing something here?

ubcd521.iso -> ubcd/images/datalife.img.gz -> xxx.img (instead of datalife.img, as it would be expected). I am asking about the reason to use a different file name. Is there any conflict with any other file or program?

I just checked the V5.2.1 ISO image and didn't find /ubcd/images/xxx.img.gz, only /ubcd/images/datalife.img.gz. Am I missing something here?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum